Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures

[hjbuell]

@Crypto -- True, but it's in the interests of advertisers to have meaningful and engaging content tied into their ads. People who make good posts will also make short and funny posts - but it's the quality posts that count. That's what spammers aren't capable of.

Take a guy like Roslinpl who is making quality posts, adding meaningful contributions to the forums, and doing a bang up job of presenting good arguments, thoughtful ideas, and some short funny / opinion stuff as well, and that's the sort of face you want representing your brand.

Not the crap spammers do.

Anyway, my $0.02, and that's about what it's worth too

[1714691498]

1714691498

[1714691498]

1714691498

[1714691498]

1714691498

[rohnearner]

Another issue I clearly see with this is that the advertising services that are going to stick around on this forum ( yes they will ) are going to pay even smaller sums for newbie / jr members, therefore creating an even bigger incentive to post high quantities of low quality posts to make up for 'lost' money in comparison to the full members.

You have a valid point, if that happens that will create more problem, IMHO the decision of putting restriction on Signature is justified, but I don't think its the solution to cut down the spam post. Lets see and analyze for next few days..!

[BadBear]

Good solution, gives people incentive to want to hang onto their accounts if they want to be paid for their sigs.

Another issue I clearly see with this is that the advertising services that are going to stick around on this forum ( yes they will ) are going to pay even smaller sums for newbie / jr members, therefore creating an even bigger incentive to post high quantities of low quality posts to make up for 'lost' money in comparison to the full members.

You have a valid point, if that happens that will create more problem, IMHO the decision of putting restriction on Signature is justified, but I don't think its the solution to cut down the spam post. Lets see and analyze for next few days..!

Once they get banned a couple of times they'll figure out that if they ever want to hang onto their account to get around this that they need to not spam. And we do ban spammers, I ban probably 10-12 people on average a day.

I was busy for the past few months in reporting spam posts. And it seems like I got 100% accuracy so far. Just hit on the "report to moderator" link and you'll see that useless post gone. If it's disallowed, there will be a plunge in activities.

I report posts as I go, also, but even with a 100% accuracy (do they really keep track?) some threads/posts I've reported are untouched.

Just because a specific post may remain doesn't mean the moderator didn't act on it. May have opted for a pm warning, or may have just banned them but didn't delete posts, etc.

[CryptKeeper]

The most obvious solution to this is not to count posts of less than 50 words towards post count. (19 words)

Problem solved. People can still make short, one word posts - they just won't contribute to post count. More importantly, the required '50 posts' that people need to make won't happen nearly as quickly, as short posts won't bump the number. (40 words)

Barring that, penalize the advertisers. If an advertiser is generating enough income from posts here, then they can do a better job of checking people using their signatures. (28 words)

(87 words in total)

This would require more staff to moderate this though or the signature advetiser to moderate this because it would take a very long time each day to find out who is posting less than 19 words and who isn't.

+1

You could limit the font size and colours for the signature, that's all you could do without constantly checking new posts!

First - your post clearly demonstrates that you have no idea how paid writing works - which is fine. The (19 Words, etc) is simply giving you a visual spot of approximately how many words a post is. An advertiser (not a mod) can easily look at posts and see what they will or will not pay for without actually counting the words. I can sit here all day and tell you within 5 words with content of 50 words. If the forum code that tracks post count can't be modified to track the words or characters per post, then the advertisers can eyeball it. They will quickly get a handle on who is worth paying and who is just crap.

However, that just highlights the problem with this entire thread. None of you really grasp how paid writing works, and so you're applying solutions from your own perspectives that simply aren't going to be effective long term.

Short of eliminating signatures, you aren't going to fix the problem by changing signatures. Instead, you're going to drive off users who would make decent posts to earn a buck - which will only serve to increase the amount of crap in these forums because you're just adding incentive for the third world to make more shitty posts.

Allow me to explain (and really, I am not being an ass, so please forgive me if I come across as one - that's absolutely not my intent).

Third world countries - the ones you see the ads on TV that tell you how $1 a day can feed Sally, or whatever, are actually places you can live for less than $1 a day. You can feed a family for $1 a day in most cases. So that means anyone who has access to an internet cafe (a room filled with computers, all connected to the internet), can go from cafe to cafe in their city (let's assume 7 cafes), and make 14 posts a day on their accounts, even commenting on their own posts from other accounts - or creating foolish threads just to generate more fodder for them to comment on.

That means that in two weeks, they can have 14 accounts rocking the forums, each one making a collective average of 1 post per day. With the post minimums they way they are, those posts can be more or less crap. Every cafe has a different IP, so there is no way you will nail them all. At that rate, someone creative could spend their one day in each cafe, drinking tea (which is so cheap it qualifies as almost free), and making worthless posts about nothing.

The truly creative could one up it even more. Then there are those who +1 their trust in the process (for the truly entrepreneurial). There are some higher level users in these forums I've tracked and been warned of by others who do just that. Look at the trust of some users, and then skim their posts and - surprise - you find whole one sided conversations, with the same tone, character, and prose (or lack thereof in some cases).

So, at the end of the day, you either eliminate signatures, in which case your forums more or less die because your advertisers move away as the forums become a closed group of people increasing their own trust levels and posting crap, or you look at the issue from the perspective of people posting crap, and move it out of their range. When it is no longer possible to post crap, people stop posting crap (outside of the trust system abuse). Plain and simple.

Anyway, good luck with staying relevant in a sea of turds when you've just added incentive for more turds to float out in the forums.

Good point, but I wasn't proposing to eliminate the signatures. A small signature in decent colours (like your's) is no problem. But it's a pain to keep up with all the posts here if you have the big banner-like signatures with loud colours... and combine that with the gif avatars! 

[Cryptopher]

@Crypto -- True, but it's in the interests of advertisers to have meaningful and engaging content tied into their ads. People who make good posts will also make short and funny posts - but it's the quality posts that count. That's what spammers aren't capable of.

Take a guy like Roslinpl who is making quality posts, adding meaningful contributions to the forums, and doing a bang up job of presenting good arguments, thoughtful ideas, and some short funny / opinion stuff as well, and that's the sort of face you want representing your brand.

Not the crap spammers do.

Anyway, my $0.02, and that's about what it's worth too

Of course good quality content is great for the image of the brand, but ultimately it is clicks to the site that matter. There are some participants in sig campaigns that make short, meaningful replies to posts on here - but should that be disregarded? Nah.

If you go down the quality people representing your brand then ad sig owners would have hired a hand-picked team of folk who post long, high quality responses. But they don't, because it is a balancing act between the value in a post and the quantity of posts to increase exposure.

hilariousandco has made a hell of a lot of posts, in fact, he is on the first page of top posters - yet I have not yet found a useless post that he has made, even the shorter ones have been helpful/funny/within topic.

[DeboraMeeks]

BadBear: what exactly does spamming consist of?

[BawsyBoss]

This isn't going to help the problem at all.

Shouldve kept it like before... people are still going to make useless posts that have been posted before (repeating) and overall people are going to aim for high statuses and therefore spam.

+1 agreed

It doesn't matter whether a person posts 14 times in a two week period or 1200 times, it won't make a difference towards the activity level. This is how it will work.

[nimda]

This isn't going to help the problem at all.

Shouldve kept it like before... people are still going to make useless posts that have been posted before (repeating) and overall people are going to aim for high statuses and therefore spam.

Luckily the activity system means even 1000 posts in a day won't get you out of newbie status.

[hjbuell]

This is what I was talking about in terms of content, selling what you write, and branding: https://hjbuell.com/content-writing-copywriting/

Hopefully I did not come across as an ass to anyone. Totally not my intent. I just deal daily with people asking me to write great content for pennies - so I'm intimately familiar with how easy it is to buy posts and spam content.

Cheers,
 - H

[SlidingHorn]

This may or may not be intentional or even related...

I'm seeing that in the "Meta" & "Beginners & Help" forums, Trust ratings are not shown.

Is this intentional?  I think it should certainly be in the Beginners section to attempt to protect new users.

MOD:  I only posted it here because I didn't notice this until after the sig changes...if it should be elsewhere, let me know.

[hilariousandco]

This may or may not be intentional or even related...

I'm seeing that in the "Meta" & "Beginners & Help" forums, Trust ratings are not shown.

Is this intentional?  I think it should certainly be in the Beginners section to attempt to protect new users.

MOD:  I only posted it here because I didn't notice this until after the sig changes...if it should be elsewhere, let me know.

Yes, it's intentional. It was stated that trust rating isn't relevant in certain subforums so is therefore not shown, but I think it should be shown site-wide.

[devthedev]

Yeah, I think it should be shown site wide.

[rmines]

I don't think disallowing ads in signatures is a very good idea.
There are only some people that abuse the system by spamming or making non constructive posts.

[dexX7]

Doesn't really touch the issue of "spam posts for payment", but it seems that it wasn't mentioned before - I did not read the whole thread:

[Cryptopher]

This is what I was talking about in terms of content, selling what you write, and branding: https://hjbuell.com/content-writing-copywriting/

Hopefully I did not come across as an ass to anyone. Totally not my intent. I just deal daily with people asking me to write great content for pennies - so I'm intimately familiar with how easy it is to buy posts and spam content.

Cheers,
 - H

Yeah I believe that if somebody is requested to write quality content then the payment should reflect this.

I think that sig advertisement owners don't request quality content per se, but rather they require a certain standard to be met. It just so happens that the standard is defined as 'no spam' - which is a whole area open to interpretation.

[brush242]

Doesn't really touch the issue of "spam posts for payment", but it seems that it wasn't mentioned before - I did not read the whole thread:

Frankly, that was my number one thought. I never see signatures here or anywhere else. This place isn't so bad, but sheesh, sometimes all the goofy pictures, unicorns and glitter, and the rest of it are nuts. One of the car forums I frequent, people put largerish pictures of their cars.

[SlidingHorn]

Yes, it's intentional. It was stated that trust rating isn't relevant in certain subforums so is therefore not shown, but I think it should be shown site-wide.

I think that, of all places, the Beginners section would be somewhere where trust ratings are relevant.  If I were trying to run a scam on this board, that'd be the first place I'd go.  Plenty of fresh, naive meat - and especially if I knew that they couldn't see my trust score (and may not even know one exists)...

[hilariousandco]

Yes, it's intentional. It was stated that trust rating isn't relevant in certain subforums so is therefore not shown, but I think it should be shown site-wide.

I think that, of all places, the Beginners section would be somewhere where trust ratings are relevant.  If I were trying to run a scam on this board, that'd be the first place I'd go.  Plenty of fresh, naive meat - and especially if I knew that they couldn't see my trust score (and may not even know one exists)...

I agree with all points. That's where the most naive users tend to congregate and are therefore the most susceptible to scams. Newbs often post there asking to buy coins or whatever and I'm sure they'll get pounced on by scammers quite quickly.

[apsvinet]

Doesn't really touch the issue of "spam posts for payment", but it seems that it wasn't mentioned before - I did not read the whole thread:

Frankly, that was my number one thought. I never see signatures here or anywhere else. This place isn't so bad, but sheesh, sometimes all the goofy pictures, unicorns and glitter, and the rest of it are nuts. One of the car forums I frequent, people put largerish pictures of their cars.

Oh my god, I didn't even realize this option was available.
This makes me question this decision even more, why on earth would we make signature changes because someone is tired of the ads when he can tick 1 checkbox to solve his own issue?
I don't know about you, but I think it discourages good posting as well as bad posting when many people are making a few extra bucks by doing this. It's also a problem to change it without a proper warning, as many people are not getting paid for work they've done advertising.
When will we get an official statement about whether this change is here to stay?

[EFS]

Thanks for styling limitations theymos. Now I can Unignore most of the PD spammers.

The real problem is spamming, because of pay-per-post signatures. We should do something about it. I see a lot of people try to write +1000 posts in a month, so spam is inevitable. You don't have to write every thread you read.